Thanks for your replyAnd yet people are happy to call themselves atheists so is that a "true for me position" would you say?

My husband is a convinced atheist. As I have mentioned before he claims to have had some sort of experience whilst in a coma, which convinced him beyond all doubt that no god or afterlife exists. I don't give his 'experience' anymore credence than I do of those who claim the opposite, and god came through for them.

Logged

“In times of plenty, hold in the store cupboard of your heart sweet moments of love, joy and wonder: precious memories to release in days of want.” RJG

My husband is a convinced atheist. As I have mentioned before he claims to have had some sort of experience whilst in a coma, which convinced him beyond all doubt that no god or afterlife exists. I don't give his 'experience' anymore credence

If you describe your self as an atheist then how do you say you are giving it less credence.That question needn't be rhetorical.

“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

The correct response if to accept that I do not know, and have no reason to believe either.

Does this make sense now?

No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other. There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know) depends on which you find persuasive.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 11:41:48 AM by Genial Harry Grout »

Logged

There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.George Orwell.

No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other.

It is knowable: you could count them all, that you don't know prior to counting doesn't mean the number of blades of grass can never be known (if you could be bothered that is).

Quote

There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know depends on which you find persuasive.

That isn't the point. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't claim as an item of knowledge that there is no god but that there are no good reasons to think so. On the other hand a gnostic theist would say that they know (as an item of knowledge) that there is no god, and you'd be entitled to ask them to demonstrate their claim that there is no god.

It is knowable: you could count them all, that you don't know prior to counting doesn't mean the number of blades of grass can never be known (if you could be bothered that is).

That isn't the point. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't claim as an item of knowledge that there is no god but that there are no good reasons to think so. On the other hand a gnostic theist would say that they know (as an item of knowledge) that there is no god, and you'd be entitled to ask them to demonstrate their claim that there is no god.

I think you have misread me I asked for an example of good reasoning pertinent to this forum.

Can you explain the what is unreasonable about that request?

The context of my 'no good reasons', which you reacted to, was in relation to arguments offered in support of theism (the usual suspects) - but you know this already, Vlad, so your attempt to change the context of my remark is a big fail for you.

Nope: you know what they are anyway, Vlad - after all they've been mentioned often enough (unless you haven't been paying attention).

Quite. He knows perfectly well (or has no excuse for not knowing given how often it’s been explained to him) that logic is objectively verifiable – an argument is logically sound or it’s logically false. He also knows that atheism entails only finding arguments made for “god” to be logically false, for exactly the same reasons he’d find them to be logically false too if they were used to argue for something else.

If someone believes sincerely that there is a god (or anything else with no validating logic) that’s a subjective truth just for him, but that’s all it is.

What Vlad hopes to get from this is anyone’s guess – attention presumably – but it just pollutes this mb.

Logged

“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other. There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know) depends on which you find persuasive.

Quite. He knows perfectly well (or has no excuse for not knowing given how often it’s been explained to him) that logic is objectively verifiable – an argument is logically sound or it’s logically false. He also knows that atheism entails only finding arguments made for “god” to be logically false, for exactly the same reasons he’d find them to be logically false too if they were used to argue for something else.

If someone believes sincerely that there is a god (or anything else with no validating logic) that’s a subjective truth just for him, but that’s all it is.

What Vlad hopes to get from this is anyone’s guess – attention presumably – but it just pollutes this mb.

Like the universe Hillside is infintely regressing his refutations of the reasons for theism. His previous post is how the refutations are in a previous post and this has gone on and on hence his inability to produce the refutations.